FutureGen and Technology Challenges for Climate Change

Michael J. MuddChief Executive Officer

FutureGen Industrial Alliance

Presentation toMIT Carbon Sequestration Forum VII

Nov.1 2006

IGCC: Innovative Technology

GasifierGasifier

Coal, Water and OxygenCoal, Water and Oxygen

Sulfur RemovalSulfur Removal

Solids and CoSolids and Co--ProductsProductsSulfurSulfur

Clean SyngasClean Syngas

Other Chemical ProductsOther Chemical Products

ElectricityElectricityElectricityElectricity

SteamSteam

WaterWater

Cooling WaterCooling WaterAirAir

Advantages of IGCC• Potential for lower emissions and higher efficiencies

• Allows coal to benefit from gas turbine technology improvements

• Easier to permit than new pulverized coal

• Versatile - feedstock flexibility and multiple products (electricity, chemicals -including hydrogen, transportation fuel, or "synthetic" natural gas)

• Potential to reduce incremental cost of CO2 capture

Advantages of IGCC• Potential for lower emissions and higher efficiencies

• Allows coal to benefit from gas turbine technology improvements

• Easier to permit than new pulverized coal

• Versatile - feedstock flexibility and multiple products (electricity, chemicals -including hydrogen, transportation fuel, or "synthetic" natural gas)

• Potential to reduce incremental cost of CO2 capture

Transitioning from NGCC to IGCC Adds Cost and Complexity

Natural gas

CombinedCycle

GASTURBINE

STEAMTURBINECONDENSER

TO STACK

HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE

Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO

CAT A

LYST

SCR

POWER

POWER

TRIG™ Simplified Flow Diagram

CombinedCycle

GASTURBINE

STEAMTURBINECONDENSER

TO STACK

HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE

Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO

CATA

LYST

SCR

POWER

POWER

GasifierIsland

COAL PILE

PROCESSAIR

COMPRESSOR

PARTICULATECOLLECTION

HIGHTEMPERATURE

SYNGASCOOLING

LOWTEMPERATURE

SYNGASCOOLING

SULFURREMOVAL AN

RECOVERY

COALMILLING &DRYING

HIGHPRESSURE

COALFEEDING

SOURWATER

TREATMENTAMMONIA

RECOVERY

SYNGASRECYCLE

SYNGAS

SYNGAS

SYNGAS

VENT GAS ANHYDROUAMMONIA

S

SULFURSYNGAS

G-ASH HP BFW

HP STEAM

MERCURYREMOVAL

TRANSPORTGASIFIER

AIR

F-ASH

EXTRACTION AIR

D

TRIGTM with Carbon Separation Technology Added

CombinedCycle

GASTURBINE

STEAMTURBINECONDENSER

TO STACK

HP, SUPERHEATEDSTEAMCONDENSATE

Heat Recovery Steam GeneratorCO

CATA

LYST

SCR

POWER

POWER

GasifierIsland

COAL PILE

PROCESSAIR

COMPRESSOR

PARTICULATECOLLECTION

HIGHTEMPERATURE

SYNGASCOOLING

CO2 and SULFURREMOVAL AND

RECOVERY

COALMILLING &DRYING

HIGHPRESSURE

COALFEEDING

SOURWATER

TREATMENTAMMONIA

RECOVERY

GASRECYCLE

LOWTEMPERATURE

GASCOOLING

SYNGAS

Hydrogen/ Nitrogen

EXTRACTION AIR

VENT GAS ANHYDROUSAMMONIA

SULFURGAS

G-ASH

G-ASH

HP BFW

HP STEAM

MERCURYREMOVAL

TRANSPORTGASIFIER

AIR

F-ASH

WATER GASSHIFT

REACTION

CO2

Examples of Syngas CO2 Capture Systems

Sour

ce:

Dako

ta G

asifi

catio

n

Petcoke Gasification to Produce H2(Kansas)

Sour

ce:

Chev

ron-

Texa

co

Coal Gasification to Produce SNG(North Dakota)

Commercialization Pathway

ExistingCommercial IGCC

IGCC w/CarbonCapture & Storage

Challenges: …………..

1.Verify Capex / OpEx2.Prove electricity costs3.Validate design decisions4.Verify operability

Carbon CaptureChallenges:

1. Incremental Capex and OpEx costs

2. Additional design andoperational complexity

Sequestration Challenges:

1. Uncertainty in sequestration science

2. Permitting and compliance for long-term.

FutureGenAEP IGCC Plant

FutureGen ProjectKey Features

• Commercial-scale, 275-MWe Plant • Minimum of 1 million tons/year CO2 captured and sequestered• Production of electricity from hydrogen• “Living laboratory” to test and validate cutting-edge technologies• Public-private partnership• Stakeholder involvement• International participation

FutureGen Project Benefits

• Supports a technology-based climate change strategy– Mitigates the financial risks of climate change

• Validates the cost and performance of an integrated near-zero emission coal-fueled power plant

– Advances IGCC technology– Advances carbon capture, sequestration, and hydrogen-production technologies– Sets groundwork for CO2 sequestration siting and licensing

• Creates the technical basis to retain coal U.S. energy mix with a long-term goal of zero emissions

• Enables the public and private sector to share the cost and risk of advanced technology demonstration

– Platform for emerging technology demonstration

The FutureGen Alliance

• An international, non-profit consortium of some of the largest coal and utility companies in the world

• Partnering with US Department of Energy to design, construct and operate the facility

FutureGen ProjectAddress the Technology Challenges

• Establish the technical, economic, and environmental viability of near-zero emission coal plants by 2015; thus, creating the option for multiple commercial deployments by 2020

• Adopting aggressive goals:– Sequester >90% CO2 with potential for ~100%– Extensive control of other emissions

• >99% sulfur removal• <0.05 lb/mmbtu NOx• <0.005 lb/mmbtu PM• >90% Hg removal

– Integrate new equipment, yet achieve commercial availability– With potential for a Nth plant commercial cost no more than 10% greater than that of

a conventional power plant

FutureGenIndustry’s View of the Facility

Air

Advanced Electricity

Generation

Research “User Facility”

Advanced Gas Clean-Up

SyngasSyngas CO2 H2

Advanced CO2 separation

O2 SyngasSyngas H2CO2Coal

Air

Slag

AirSeparation

UnitGasification Gas Clean-Up**

CO2Separation**

ElectricityGeneration**

Transportation and

other H2 uses

CO2Sequestration &

Monitoring

Electricity/Hydrogen Generation “Backbone”with CO2 Sequestration/Monitoring System

Advanced Oxygen

Separation

**Candidate for Multiple Technology Upgrades over FutureGen’s Lifetime.

Other Technologies

Electricity,H2, or

other Products

Advanced Coal

Conversion

Full-Scale Gasification

ResearchPlatform

POWERH2

Sequestration

Sub-scaleResearch

User Facility

POWER

Other Required Process Operations

~830°F

~550°F

~555°F

~600°F

~550°F

~550°F

Syngas in

water quench or steam addition

CO + H2O ⇔ CO2 + H2COS + H2O ⇔ CO2 + H2S• Water Gas Shift Reactors

– convert CO in syngas to CO2and H2

Syngas in

Absorption at processpressure

CO2-lean solvent

Pure CO2

Steam

Clean gas out

CO2-rich solvent

Regeneration T/P depends on solvent properties

Compression• Carbon Separation Equipment

– remove CO2 and H2S from H2

Hydrogen Combustion Is Challenging

• Requires diffusion type burner due to H2 flame speed• Operations will require fuel flexibility

H2, syngas, NG• 15 ppm NOx is achievable with H2 / diluent

Will need SCR

• Combustor technology improvements needed:– Fuel flexibility– Catalytic & premix based combustion

H2 / N2 Flame

Hydrogen Fuel Affects Gas Turbine Operations

Gen

H2 / Diluent 24%

Air - 100%

Gas Turbine

Natural Gas 2%NG Exhaust 102%

H2 Exhaust 124%

• Gas turbines are 'mass flow' machines– More mass throughput = more power – Current design geometries based on NG

• Fuel input is part of total mass flow through hot section

– Changing from NG to H2affects flows and output

– H2 / Diluent has higher mass flow– Unbalanced mass flow in

turbine section can impact compressor stability

• Turbine impacts of H2 firing:– Higher H20 in exhaust reduces life– Requires reduced firing temperatures (lost efficiency)

FutureGenCurrent Activities

• Site Selection– “Final Four” announced July 25– NEPA process underway

• First round of public hearings complete• First submittal of EIV surface and subsurface data complete• Preliminary emission envelope established

– Final site announced summer 2007

• Conceptual Plant Design– Reviews with major technology suppliers– Three alternative facility configurations identified– Conceptual design and cost estimate completed

• Conceptual Sequestration Design– Reservoir modeling for each site– Cost estimate completed

• Continuation Application for Budget Period 1– Will be submitted Dec. 14

Design & Cost EstimateDesign Cases

• Two Single-Trains– Slurry feed water quench– Dry feed water quench

• One Multiple-Stream Hybrid– 100% full slurry quench– 30% transport gasifier with ITM air separation

• Three coal types– Northern Appalachian– Illinois Basin– PRB

These are design configurations for the conceptual design & cost estimate, not the final designs. The actual designs

will be established through competitive bids in 2007.

FutureGenSite Selection Approach

Compliant with NEPA requirements– Conducted to support Environmental Impact Statement– RFP involved public comment period– Must consider reasonable sites– Must be approved by DOE (Lead Federal Agency)

Fair and Transparent Process– Driven by technical criteria not politics – Conducted in a ‘glass house’– Final selection report available to the public; posed on Alliance web page

Use defendable criteria– Rigorous process with clear criteria– Engaged industry experts– Consider both surface and subsurface characteristics

FutureGenSite RFP CriteriaQualifying Criteria

– Each proposal evaluated against certain qualifying criteria (Y/N)Scoring Criteria

– Each proposal scored on each criteria against a predetermined scale – Weighting system used to roll-up criteria scores

Best Value Criteria– Each proposal qualitatively evaluated against these criteria

A report that details the process can be obtained from the FutureGen web site www.FutureGenAlliance.org

FutureGenSite RFP Qualifying Criteria

17 Surface Criteria 18 Subsurface Criteria

FutureGenSite RFP Scoring Criteria

3.0 Power Plant

SiteCharacteristics

Construction &Operations

3.1 PhysicalCharacterisitcs

3.3 Proximity toSensitive Areas

3.4 Exposure toNatural Hazards

3.2 Other SiteCharacteristics

3.1.1Size

3.6 Water(Cooling)

3.7Transmission

3.8 Materialand FuelDelivery

3.2.1Road

Access

3.2.2Proximityto Target.Forma-tion(s)

3.3.2 TES& CriticalHabitat

3.3.3Cultural

Resources

3.3.4PublicAccessAreas

3.3.5 Non-Attainment

/ Maint.Areas

3.3.1Class I

VisibilityAreas

3.6.1Distance

3.6.2Adequacy

3.7.1 GridProximity

3.7.2Voltage

3.8.3Access toNatural

Gas

3.8.2DeliveryMode

Flexibility

3.8.1 Rail/BargeAccess

3.5.1SEPA

3.1.3Ele-

vation

3.7.3Rights-of-way

3.9Availability of

Workforce

3.9.3Construc-tion Cost

3.9.2Opera-tionalLaor

3.9.1Construc-tion Labor

FutureGen Siting Scoring Criteria

3.1.2Topo-graphy

3.2.5Existing

Land Use

3.2.3Dis-

persion

3.2.4 AirQuality

3.4.1Hurricane

3.4.2Tornado

3.1.4Flood-plain

3.5 Regulatory& Permitting

3.1.5Wetlands

4.0 Geologic Storage

Security

4.1 FormationProperties

4.1.2Orien-tation

4.1.4Capacity

4.2.1Faults

4.2.2Capillary

EntryPressure

4.2.4Injection

WellPenetra-

tions

4.2.5Other

Penetra-tions

4.2.3FractureGradient

4.3.1PhysicalAccess

4.1.1TargetForma-tion(s)

GeologicCharacteristics

4.1.5Size

4.1.3 Per-meability

4.2 Seals4.3 Monitoring,Measurement &

Verification

4.2.6Secondary

Seals

4.3.3Subsurface

Access

4.3.2Legal

Access29 Surface Criteria 14 Subsurface Criteria

FutureGenSite RFP Best Value Criteria

• Land Cost• Availability / Quality of Existing

Plant and Target Formation Characterization Data

• Land Ownership• Residences or Sensitive

Receptors above Target Formation

• Waste Recycling and Disposal

• Clean Air Act Compliance• Expedited Permitting• Transmission Interconnection• Background CO2 Data• Power Sales• Market for H2

• CO2 Title and Indemnification• Other Considerations

FutureGen Site Selection Ranking of proposals

Combined Results

668 642 629 632 632 595 582525

385 385 395 375 365355

275

255

1053 1027 1024 1007 997950

857

780

0

300

600

900

1200

TX-Brazos IL-Mattoon TX-Odessa IL-Eff IL-Tuscola IL-Marshall OH-Tusc. KY

Surface Score Subsurface Score

Ranking before Best Value Criteria was applied

FutureGen Site Selection

12 Sites in 7 States

C. Davidson 2006

Candidate Sites

Candidate Site FeaturesConceptual Sequestration Design

Brazos OdessaMattoon Tuscola

• Injection on-site• ~8,000 ft deep• Mt. Simon sandstone

formation

• Injection off-site (~10 miles)

• New pipeline to be constructed

• ~8,000 ft deep• Mt. Simon sandstone

formation

• Injection at two sites (~25 and 33 miles)

• New pipeline to be constructed

• ~6,000 ft deep in the Woodbine formation

• ~11,000 ft deep in the Travis Peak formation

• Injection off-site (~56 miles)

• Potential to use existing pipeline with minor upgrades

• ~6,000 ft deep• Guadeloupe Sands

The FutureGen injection and MMV protocol will be state of the art, world class, and meaningful

1000’

10000’

5000’5600’

7750’8350’

Comparison of Sites by

Depth

Source: Battelle

Seal

Injection

11,500’

FutureGenProject Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Alliance Established

Full Scale Plant Operations

Siting, Environmental Review & Permitting

Project Structuring and

Conceptual Design

Design

Facility Construction

Plant Startup We are here

Final Site Selection

FutureGen is real, and moving fast!

CCS Issues - Liability

• Insurance (at a reasonable cost) needs actuarial database to quantify risk.

• Corporate risk-management departments have significant influence on project approvals

• CCS time frame is beyond most precedents• Risk/reward elements not the same as for EOR• Price-Anderson type of government umbrella is

essential

Indemnification

An analysis of barriers to the commercialization of Carbon Capture and Storage will quickly reveal that liability associated with the long-term injection of CO2 into geological formations is a key barrier.

The issue is not the safety of injection, but the business issue of risk management. It is important for the Federal Government to step in and provide a backstop for liability associated with theinjection of CO2 into geological formations.

FutureGen CCS IssuesState Level

• Asked states to take title to the CO2 and indemnify the Alliance• Six states would not; no legislative authority• Texas agreed to take title, subject to legislative approval

Federal Level• Alliance requested DOE to indemnify the Alliance concerning CO2

sequestration• DOE has no legislative authority to do so.• Enabling legislation being considered by some congressional

subcommitteesNOTE Need for indemnification is not due to lack of confidence in the

safety of injection, but in recognition that:• FutureGen is a FOAK demonstration• Such indemnification will likely be required for early entrants in the

future to commercialize CCS.

• AcknowledgementThis material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FC26-06NT42073.

• DisclaimerThis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.